posted at 8:41 pm on August 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

I knew before reading the story that that was untrue because I remembered the clip where he talked about it. Alllll the way back in January 2011, right after Paul was sworn in as a senator, he floated a budget proposal that would have cut $500 billion in federal spending — in one year. That was his way of raising the bar after all the attention lavished on Paul Ryan for his “roadmap” to entitlement reform. If you want to see fiscal restraint, Paul seemed to be saying, get a load of this. It was a smart bit of branding, introducing himself as the tea party/libertarian hybrid who’d be willing to push the Overton window further right than any of the business-as-usual types already in Washington. And as the Overton window moved, so too would America’s approach to foreign aid. No more aid to anyone, Paul demanded. We simply can’t afford it. Does that include Israel, asked Wolf Blitzer? Watch the first clip below, from late January 2011, for the answer.

“I haven’t really proposed that in the past,” Paul told Yahoo News when asked if he still thought the U.S. should phase out aid to Israel, which has been battling Hamas in Gaza for weeks. “We’ve never had a legislative proposal to do that. You can mistake my position, but then I’ll answer the question. That has not been a position—a legislative position—we have introduced to phase out or get rid of Israel’s aid. That’s the answer to that question. Israel has always been a strong ally of ours and I appreciate that. I voted just this week to give money—more money—to the Iron Dome, so don’t mischaracterize my position on Israel.”

He’s never supported cutting aid specifically to Israel, I think he means to say, but yeah, he’s most certainly supported turning off the tap to the world at large, Israel included. You can understand why his memory might be “foggy” on that: Foreign policy is his biggest liability in the primaries and there’s no foreign-policy litmus test within the GOP as important as support for Israel, something Paul’s been at pains to demonstrate since he was a candidate. We’re close enough to the 2016 campaign now, I guess, that rather than try to explain his 2011 position with a “yes, but,” he’s opting for a clear if misleading “hell, no.” In fact, 2011 wasn’t the last time he supported ending all foreign aid, including to Israel; Dave Weigel’s catalogued a few other comments from over the last few years. Sometimes he frames the question in terms of Israel being wealthy enough to pay for its own defense, other times he uses the more hawk-pleasing argument that cutting aid would actually free Israel to hit its jihadi neighbors like Hamas and Iran as hard as it wants without meddling from the United States.

Either way, he no longer holds this view. Watch the second clip below from last week (via MFP) and you’ll see that he supports funding for Iron Dome. Maybe that’s because purely defensive weapons are more copacetic with his view of foreign entanglements or maybe it’s because, having tried and failed to convince conservatives that cutting aid could be good for America and for Israel, he’s decided to give in before 2016 rivals like Ted Cruz start paying attention to this issue. I tend to think he realized at some point that his larger project of cutting all foreign aid would face much greater resistance within the GOP if it included Israel, so by bowing to them on that point and building up some credibility with hawks now, they might be willing to support cutting aid for everyone but Israel later. Whatever the answer, though, if you’re skittish about Paul’s foreign policy you can take some comfort in the fact that, unlike his old man, he apparently can and will bend towards majority Republican opinion if crossing it imperils his career. In fact, read Leon Wolf’s post at Red State noting that this isn’t the first time Paul has flip-flopped on an issue for apparently political reasons. For most politicians, that would be a black mark. For Paul, who’s busy flipping towards mainstream conservatives, maybe it’s reassuring to the voters he needs.

Update: This is, I think, the first time we’ve received a statement from Paul’s office in response to a post. That’s how important this issue is.

Spokesman for Senator Rand Paul:

“Senator Rand Paul has never proposed any legislation that targeted Israel’s aid and just last week voted to continue and increase funding to the State of Israel. Sen. Paul is a strong supporter of the Jewish state of Israel. In 2011, Sen. Paul proposed a budget resolution that did not include certain foreign assistance programs in an effort to balance the budget in five years.

Subsequent budget proposals made by Sen. Paul have included up to $5 billion for foreign assistance to account for U.S.-Israel security interests.

Sen. Paul’s position was exactly what Prime Minister Netanyahu said to Congress on July 10, 1996 and May 24, 2011 – Israel will be better off when it does not have to count on anyone else for its protection.

Sen. Paul has attempted several times this year to pass the Stand with Israel Act. The bill would cut off the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Palestinian Authority if it were allied with Hamas. Last month, he issued a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requesting committee action on the Stand with Israel Act.”

Facts Supporting Claim

Senator Rand Paul’s position was exactly what Prime Minister Netanyahu said to Congress on July 10, 1996 and May 24, 2011 – Israel will be better off when it does not have to count on anyone else for its protection.

· Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress on July 10, 1996 saying, “With America’s help, Israel has grown to be a powerful, modern state. I believe that we can now say that Israel has reached childhood’s end, that it has matured enough to begin approaching a state of self­ reliance.”

· He further added on July 10, 1996, “But I believe there can be no greater tribute to America’s long-standing economic aid to Israel than for us to be able to say: We are going to achieve economic independence. We are going to do it. In the next four years, we will begin the long-term process of gradually reducing the level of your generous economic assistance to Israel.”

· On May 24, 2011, the Prime Minister addressed the U.S. Congress again saying, “My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export Democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own.”

Senator Rand Paul supports Israel, and just last week voted to continue/ increase funding for Israel.

· Senator Rand Paul has attempted several times this year to pass the Stand with Israel Act. The bill would cut off the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Palestinian Authority if it were allied with Hamas.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I like Rand Paul but there’s a couple of concerns. One is his foreign policy. My concern is… I’m sure what it is, his foreign policy that it, but it seems clear that he wants to cut the military one way or the other. Some may like that idea, not me, especially now, with the radical nuts everywhere and the world going potentially crazy.

Another hit on Rand, the more I read stories here and the more I notice other excluded stories it’s starting to seem like this site is pushing the GOPe message in a soft way so as not to startle the members.

People who flip for political reasons are not allies worth voting into power. I am willing to accept people changing positions when facts change or events prove their prior views to be in conflict with reality. I am not willing to accept changing positions when the only reason is to sway voters minds.

Paul has less of a chance to convince me to vote for him than Rick Perry has. He is on the wrong side of too many things, including amnesty and immigration in general.

Sowell has an excellent point. It’s time for people to start thinking for themselves instead of simply reacting.

Paul and the other members of the political class try so hard to stay on the breaking curve of ‘public opinion’ that they don’t stop to consider whether the public’s opinion is informed and who may have informed it.

Another hit on Rand, the more I read stories here and the more I notice other excluded stories it’s starting to seem like this site is pushing the GOPe message in a soft way so as not to startle the members.

celt on August 4, 2014 at 8:52 PM

How is this a hit? Psh, level-headed examination of a position of your favorite potential nominee doesn’t amount to Hot Gas doing the work of the establishment GOP.

we always hear this stoopid mantra of “we need to do “whatever” first in “this” election, elect republicans, lesser of two evils is great etc…..

and then republicans never fight for what they were elected to do, but do what the lobbyist paid them to do.

that’s why democrats always eat our lunch, republicans have no plan for the day after tomorrow, todays lobbyist bribes are all they think of. republicans are self immolating and democrats are creating a permanent democrat majority.

Another hit on Rand, the more I read stories here and the more I notice other excluded stories it’s starting to seem like this site is pushing the GOPe message in a soft way so as not to startle the members.

celt on August 4, 2014 at 8:52 PM

There isn’t a single conservative on the HA editorial staff and that’s the way Salem Communications wants it. There’s nothing conservative about Salem, but HA is a moneymaker.

Israel is sitting on billions of dollars of gas they are trying to sell. Any president that sends money to Israel to subsidize their growing population of non workers is negligent and would be doing great harm to the American people.

Israel,does not need the money and is only taking it because it is free.

in a perfect world we should be able to cut all aid to every country except Israel, but its not a perfect world.
we do need to cut all this aid to all these places.
and by cut I mean full stop.
we can’t afford it.
course we could let Israel test some hardware for us on the battlefield..

course I expect paul would have issues with that but I don’t give a damn what he thinks.

Much like Mitt Romney, Rand Paul is attempting to be all things to all people and sucking up to the GOP establishment along the way. He is trying to build a new coalition for 2016 and hopes that conservatives will hold their noses and forgive him. Rand has left fighting GOPe up to Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions.

Rand has better things to do than worry about the country. After all, he is running for President.

Why, if we did not give those hundreds of billions Billy Clinton would not get his tens of millions in speaking fees.

There is a method to the madness in some of it. We arm the not so crazies just enough that they are too much threat for the really whack-job crazies to attack and remove from power. It is kind of like the mutually assured destruction principle.

But overall, I really do not see why we arm societies that are filled with people who say they want to kill us. That is just crazy. Then again, I do not know why we have nut-jobs here in the USA who are not willing to spend a few billion bucks to keep the people who like us alive and well and deny those resources to the whack-jobs who want to kill us.

So far the Israeli’s have not shown the dependent resentment that places like Europe show us for our support. So long as they remain moral on that level, I tend to think they are a good ally to have. I also think Japan has shown itself to be a good ally worthy of support.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the middle east, and thus an effective bulwark against Islamofascism.

LOL!! How naive are you??

USA has been propping up dictators and tyrants in the middle east for decades. In many instances, US helped dictators in crushing any popular uprising.
USA doesn’t give rat’s ass about liberal democracy as long as its strategic interests are met. Get real, dude..

I see them as a moral and virtuous people. They work, they create, they defend. I am not sure exactly what there is to dislike about their nation overall. Even in war they put a far greater emphasis than I would in ensuring the other side is not harmed more than necessary in their defense actions.
I tend to figure that is why conservatives like them and why regressive’s hate them.

I see them as a moral and virtuous people. They work, they create, they defend. I am not sure exactly what there is to dislike about their nation overall. Even in war they put a far greater emphasis than I would in ensuring the other side is not harmed more than necessary in their defense actions.
I tend to figure that is why conservatives like them and why regressive’s hate them.

Scott Walker is the best governor we have right now. He has single handedly saved WI. However he is just too Boring and bland to win an election in this star obsessed country.

But really Scott Walker is about as exciting as watching paint dry, whole waiting for grass to grow.

Raquel Pinkbullet on August 4, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Walker would have my support, regardless of his ability to win. I will not vote for slimy types (like McCain & Romney) who are supposedly more marketable. Those who voted for those two can feel extra good about themselves: “I voted for slime, and he lost.”

Not that I agree with all of Walker’s positions. But he’s the anti-Obama: all substance, no flash.

Only thing I cautioned against is thinking it will pay off in more Jewish votes…

Raquel Pinkbullet on August 4, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Doing the right thing is not about getting rewarded for it.

Kind of like the bible. The people who prostrate themselves praying to show their prayers are doing so to get rewards on earth, they will not get them in heaven.
Those who give in the open loudly and flagrantly are also doing so to get their reward here on earth, they will not get them in heaven.

I can understand the argument, well, let them go without aid when they are not under attack and then support them when they are under attack.

Do you realize what that would mean in reality? That would mean boots on the ground of our men and women trying to expel from their borders invaders, after many casualties have happened. An exponentially more costly endeavor. Our support of them is insurance against a far worse expense later.

Imagine the savings we could have gained by Clinton taking out Al Qaeda before 9/11.
Imagine the savings we could have gained by Bush Sr taking out Saddam during his presidency.

Some things are worth spending money on. If you can prove that Israel could certainly defend itself against the Muslims without any aid, and would not be significantly overrun before we would have their back, then I can see a point to not helping them every year.

Some things are worth spending money on. If you can prove that Israel could certainly defend itself against the Muslims without any aid, and would not be significantly overrun before we would have their back, then I can see a point to not helping them every year.

astonerii on August 4, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Psychologically, I think our aid to Israel is important, far beyond the fiscal value. It signifies to Israel that they aren’t alone in the world. I think that helps moderate the small but vocal group of paranoid hard-liners in the Knesset.

Add “liar” to Rand’s resume, which fits pretty well with Daddy’s legacy of railing against pork spending and voting “NO” loudly on the final budget bills year after year, but only after quietly making sure all his own earmarks were sneaked into the bill in committee or conference.

It should be noted that ceasing to throw money at Israel (you know, because we’re BROKE) does not constitute ceasing aid no matter how much a certain pack of dunderheads howls that it is so. There are many other ways to give them a hand that do not involve being a financial sugar daddy, and are arguably more beneficial to both of us. Especially if said aid is the kind that makes Arabs go kaboom.

He thinks we send too much of our tax dollars overseas when
we have issues at home that need funding.

I agree.

Amjean on August 5, 2014 at 8:13 AM

You are right, he never said eliminate aid to Israel. Instead he tried to hide that in the bigger statement of eliminate ALL foreign aid. Is aid to Israel included in foreign aid? Why, yes, yes it is. Thus he did specifically intend to deny all aid to Israel.
Thank you for showing us what an underhanded perverted twisted scumbag Senator Rand Paul is. It is like he is like every other regressive politician that is destructive to the ideals that make a nation great.

“I think they’re an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world. Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don’t think so.”

– Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), in an interview with ABC News in 2011, on aid to Israel.

“I haven’t really proposed that in the past. We’ve never had a legislative proposal to do that. You can mistake my position, but then I’ll answer the question. That has not been a position–a legislative position–we have introduced to phase out or get rid of Israel’s aid.”

read Leon Wolf’s post at Red State noting that this isn’t the first time Paul has flip-flopped on an issue for apparently political reasons. For most politicians, that would be a black mark. For Paul, who’s busy flipping towards mainstream conservatives, maybe it’s reassuring to the voters he needs.

No, it is in no way re-assuring, at least to me. To me its a sign of undeveloped principles, or no principles at all, from a man with fewer than 5 years in any elective office & no legislative achievements,
no network of international contacts, and not even a whiff of proven executive ability/performance anywhere in his young life beyond running an eye doctors office back home in Kentuck.

And we’re going to put this unqualified rookie in charge at a time of rapidly-advancing global crisis, why exactly????